RAYMART SANTIAGO AT CLAUDINE BARRETTO
LAST Friday ko pa natanggap ang e-mail na ito from my good friend, my labs Atty. Ferdie Topacio tungkol sa dalawang kasong isinampa against our dear Claudine Barretto. Honestly, we felt so good with this – ang pagkaabsuwelto ni Clau-Clau sa kinasasangkutang kaso with former househelps. Here it is.
“The Prosecution Office of Marikina City today dismissed all criminal charges filed by the former house helpers of award-winning actress Claudine Barretto against her.
“In two separate resolutions, the Marikina prosecutor found ‘lack of sufficient probable cause’ in the cases of ‘Robbery and Grave Coercion’ filed by one Maria Luisa Becher, and Perjury filed by Dessa Patilan. Both were named by Barretto in a case for qualified theft which is now pending before the Marikina Regional Trial Court.
“The two complaints stemmed from an incident in July 24, 2013, wherein the actress claimed the two tried to take out pieces of jewelry from her residence in Loyola Grand Villas. After the qualified theft was filed, the former employees counterclaimed, alleging that Barretto forcibly took from them assorted personal belongings such as mobile phones and a tablet. Patilan also said that Barretto was ‘not telling the truth’ when she imputed the crime of qualified theft against her.
“The actress, who is locked in a bitter legal battle against her husband, action star Raymart Santiago, for custody of their children, said in her defense that the charges of her former househelp were ‘merely intended to provide leverage against her for the filing of the qualified theft case,’ and accused her husband of funding the lawsuit against her.
“In an eight-page resolution in the robbery case signed by assistant city prosecutor Ernesto Ablay, Jr., the prosecution said that the complainant failed to prove the element of force or intimidation against her, ‘thus negating the charge of robbery.’ The perjury case, on the other hand, was dismissed by assistant city prosecutor Ricardo Paet, Jr. in a six-page resolution saying that ‘there is no deliberate and willful assertion of falsehood’ on the part of Barretto, noting that the qualified theft case was in fact, filed in court.”